A REPORT FROM THE
PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES
AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE
TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Rec...
(intentionally left blank)
A	Report	from
m	the	PED	AR
RC	to	the	FAA	

PORTAB
BLE	ELECTR
RONIC	DEV
VICES	AVIATION	RULE MAKING	COMMITTEE	MEMBER
T
E
C
R...
A	Report	from
m	the	PED	AR
RC	to	the	FAA	

Member in concurrence, but unavailable for signature

Member of the Committee i...
A	Report	from
m	the	PED	AR
RC	to	the	FAA	

PED ARC Members

Page iii
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

(intentionally left blank)

PED ARC Members

Page iv
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

TABLE	OF	CONTENTS	

LETTER TO ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY ............
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

5.0 

CONSTITUENCY DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................
A	Report	from
m	the	PED	AR
RC	to	the	FAA	

LETTER
R	TO	ASSO
OCIATE	AD
DMINISTRATOR	FOR 	AVIATION	SAFETY	
A
R
N

 
 

A
Let...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

 

(intentionally left blank)

 
 

Letter to AVS-1

Page viii
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY	
On January 7, 2013, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Subcommittees & Working Groups
The ARC was tasked to focus on the technical, operat...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Constituency	Descriptions	
In order to achieve a balance between the regulator, reg...
A	Report	from
m	the	PED	AR
RC	to	the	FAA	

The ARC recommen
C
ndations are based on the following p
b
e
path:
Use	a
an	SMS...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

The ARC developed two recommendations for enabling airplane operators (under 14
CFR...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Summary of Recommendations
The ARC recommendations appear below, including a cross-...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Recommendation	

Recommendation	
Area	

Final	Report	
Reference	

Recommendation #6...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Recommendation	
Recommendation #9―The ARC recommends that the FAA modify
AC 91-21.1...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Recommendation	

Recommendation	
Area	

Final	Report	
Reference	

Recommendation #1...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Recommendation	

Recommendation	
Area	

Final	Report	
Reference	

Recommendation #1...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Recommendation	

Recommendation	
Area	

Final	Report	
Reference	

Recommendation #2...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

 

Conclusion	
The ARC completed its tasking and prepared this report in accordance...
A	Report	from	the	Portable	Electronic	Devices	Aviation	Rulemaking	Committee	
	to	the	Federal	Aviation	Administration	
Reco...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

2.0		 BACKGROUND	
This chapter discusses background information relevant to the ARC...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

changed. Of greater concern are intentional transmissions from PEDs. Most PEDs have...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Examples of PEDs include, but are not limited to, the following
commonly manufactur...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

As the voice communication issue is prevalent in the media, Congress, and in daily
...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

2.2.3 Special Use Monitoring
In the public comments, the ARC noted at least one ill...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

•

July 18, 2013

•

July 25, 2013

•

August 29, 2013

Members also received multi...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

2.3.3

Informational Review

During its review of the issues related to PED usage, ...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

2.4.2

Operational Subcommittee

The Operational Subcommittee focused on key issues...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Risk Assessment tool in expanding PED usage, the ARC members desired to review the
...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

3.0	

CURRENT	REGULATORY	FRAMEWORK	

This chapter provides a discussion of the curr...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	
aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

3.3

Operational Allowance

Today, the authority to allow the use of PEDs in flight...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

The FCC standards for controlling interference from PEDs are essentially the same a...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

4.0	

NOTICE	OF	POLICY	AND	REQUEST	FOR	COMMENTS	

This chapter addresses the ARC’s ...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

(b)

Comments from individuals identified as passengers (not associated with any
pa...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

(e)

Consistency in use with flight and cabin crew PEDs such as a cockpit Electroni...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

regulatory authority SMEs to support the members as they collected information and ...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

world’s leading manufacturers of general aviation airplanes and rotorcraft, engines...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

6.0	

THRESHOLD	RECOMMENDATIONS	

The ARC developed threshold recommendations to ad...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

Figure 1 – Average Life of PC/Tablets in Use (Years)32

For example, where devices ...
A	Report	from	the	PED	ARC	to	the	FAA	

6.2

Harmonization

Passengers worldwide must be comfortable and have sufficient kn...
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Ped arc final_report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Ped arc final_report

4,467

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,467
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ped arc final_report

  1. 1.   A REPORT FROM THE PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Recommendations on Expanding the Use of Portable Electronic Devices During Flight September 30, 2013 Prepared for: Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety Federal Aviation Administration Washington, DC
  2. 2. (intentionally left blank)
  3. 3. A Report from m the PED AR RC to the FAA PORTAB BLE ELECTR RONIC DEV VICES AVIATION RULE MAKING COMMITTEE MEMBER T E C RS     PED ARC Members   Page i
  4. 4. A Report from m the PED AR RC to the FAA Member in concurrence, but unavailable for signature Member of the Committee in attendance only Member in concurrence, but unavailable for signature PED ARC Members Page ii
  5. 5. A Report from m the PED AR RC to the FAA PED ARC Members Page iii
  6. 6. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA (intentionally left blank) PED ARC Members Page iv
  7. 7. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER TO ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY ........................... vii  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... ix  Definition ................................................................................................................................ ix Methodology........................................................................................................................... ix Current Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................... x Notice of Policy and Request for Comments .......................................................................... x Constituency Descriptions ...................................................................................................... xi Recommendations .................................................................................................................. xi Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. xx 1.0   PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE ... 1  2.0   BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2  2.1  2.2  Scope ............................................................................................................................. 3  2.3  Methodology ................................................................................................................. 6  2.4  Subcommittees .............................................................................................................. 8  2.5  3.0  Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2  Working Groups............................................................................................................ 9  CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................. 11  3.1  3.2  Associated Regulations and Security Activity ............................................................ 12  3.3  Operational Allowance ............................................................................................... 13  3.4  4.0  Regulatory History ...................................................................................................... 12  FCC Regulations ......................................................................................................... 13  NOTICE OF POLICY AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ......................................... 15  4.1  Federal Register Notice............................................................................................... 15  4.2  Assessment of Federal Register Comments ................................................................ 15  Table of Contents Page v
  8. 8. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 5.0  CONSTITUENCY DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................... 17  5.1  PED Manufacturers and Distributors .......................................................................... 18  5.2  Pilot and Flight Attendant Groups .............................................................................. 18  5.3  Aircraft Operators ....................................................................................................... 18  5.4  Passenger Experience Associations ............................................................................ 18  5.5  Airplane and Avionics Manufacturers ........................................................................ 18  5.6  Federal Aviation Administration ................................................................................ 19  5.7  Other U.S. and International Regulatory Authorities ................................................. 19  6.0  THRESHOLD RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 20  6.1  SMS Methodology ...................................................................................................... 20  6.2  Harmonization............................................................................................................. 22  6.3  Standardization ........................................................................................................... 22  7.0  TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 23  7.1  Airplane Certification Requirements for New Airplanes ........................................... 23  7.2  Airplane Certification Requirements for Airplanes Currently in Production ............. 24  7.3  Enabling Airplane Operators to Permit Expanded Passenger PED Use ..................... 24  7.4  Coordination with the FCC ......................................................................................... 34  8.0  OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 34  8.1  Stowage of PEDs ........................................................................................................ 34  8.2  Airline Personnel Training .......................................................................................... 35  8.3   Creation of a Job Aid for Operators ............................................................................ 36  8.4  9.0  Regulatory Action ....................................................................................................... 36  SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS............................................ 37  9.1   PED Terminology ....................................................................................................... 37  9.2  10.0  Communication Regarding PED Usage Policies ........................................................ 38  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 40      Table of Contents Page vi
  9. 9. A Report from m the PED AR RC to the FAA LETTER R TO ASSO OCIATE AD DMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY A R N     A Letter to AVS-1   Page vii a
  10. 10. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA   (intentionally left blank)     Letter to AVS-1 Page viii
  11. 11. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 7, 2013, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established the Portable Electronic Devices (PED) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) in order to provide a forum for the U.S. aviation community and PED manufacturers to review the comments received from the Notice of Policy/Request for Comments regarding PED policy and guidance published in the Federal Register. The ARC was tasked to make recommendations to further clarify and provide guidance on allowing additional PED usage without compromising the continued safe operation of the aircraft.1 Under the Charter, the ARC was scheduled to terminate on July 31, 2013. At the request of the members, the FAA extended the ARC Charter until October 31, 2013.2 The ARC has completed its review, and this report provides the results and its recommendation to the FAA. Definition In formulating its recommendations, the ARC developed and used the following definition of PED, which applies to all of the recommendations and supporting information included in this report: Portable Electronic Device: A Portable Electronic Device (PED) is any piece of lightweight, electrically-powered equipment. These devices are typically consumer electronics devices functionally capable of communications, data processing and/or utility.3 Methodology The ARC identified sources and methods for collecting objective data through presentations from subject matter experts (SMEs) and review of data submitted by the FAA, other federal agencies including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), industry associations, and ARC members. The ARC also reviewed current guidance material and information on PEDs, including documents promulgated by the FAA, Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), and FCC. Identification of Key Issues The ARC used the public comments received in response to the Federal Register notice to develop a list of key issues, which was used to assist the members in developing a roadmap for decision making. The key issues were tasked to individual subcommittees for further discussion. In using the key issues model, the members were asked to determine the relative priority of the issue, as well as the applicable subject area (technical, operational, or safety communications) for discussion.                                                              1  Appendix C, FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee Charter: Portable Electronic Device Aviation Rulemaking Committee (Effective Date: 01/07/13) at ¶3. See also, 77 FR 53159 (August 31, 2012).  2 Appendix C, FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee Charter (Renewal): Portable Electronic Device Aviation Rulemaking Committee (Effective Date: 08/28/2013) at ¶3 (describing two additional Committee tasks). 3 For clarity, the ARC notes that the definition of PEDs is intended to encompass transmitting PEDs (T-PED). Executive Summary Page ix
  12. 12. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Subcommittees & Working Groups The ARC was tasked to focus on the technical, operational, and safety aspects of expanding PED usage on aircraft that are within the FAA’s purview to address. In order to distribute the workload and provide the members an opportunity to debate issues in smaller groups, three subcommittees were each assigned key issues addressing these aspects of PED usage for consideration. The ARC recommendations submitted in this report were initially developed through the subcommittee process. During the extension granted under the renewed Charter, the ARC requested the assistance of the FAA in forming two working groups (“Tiger Teams”) to develop the safety risk assessment and a standardized PED stowage policy. The Safety Assessment and Stowage Standardization Working Groups were comprised of ARC members, as well as industry and FAA SMEs, and each working group was tasked to address an area of study and develop additional information for inclusion in this report. Current Regulatory Framework Under the current regulatory environment, the operator is still responsible for determining which PEDs may be used on its airplanes. Each operator’s PED policy determines what types of devices may be used during which phase(s) of flight. Crewmembers are responsible for ensuring passenger compliance with an airplane operator’s PED policy. Current guidance allows broad use of non-transmitting PEDs during non-critical phases of flight without detailed study of specific PEDs. However, if an operator wishes to expand its PED use allowance, FAA policy and guidance is in place to allow PED use, with the proper testing and analysis, during any phase of flight. Operators have been hesitant to deviate from current FAA guidance, as there has been no clear direction on methods to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety when expanding PED use into critical phases of flight. FCC regulations also govern certain aspects of PED usage. The FCC has established rules for radio transmitters and consumer electronics to minimize the risk of harmful interference to other users of the airwaves. FCC rules, with a few notable exceptions, do not prohibit use of radio transmitters or consumer electronics aboard airplanes. Notice of Policy and Request for Comments On August 31, 2012, the FAA published a Notice of Policy, Request for Comment regarding Passenger Use of Portable Electronic Devices on board Aircraft in the Federal Register.4 The FAA sought comments on current policy, guidance, and procedures that aircraft operators use when determining if passenger use of PEDs may be allowed during any phase of flight on their aircraft. The comment period closed on October 30, 2012, and resulted in 162 formal submissions, 854 separate commenters, and a total of 1,062 discrete comments. The PED ARC members reviewed the compiled comments and discussed the comments by each question category. From each category, specific key issues were identified and used to guide the discussion, narrow the issues presented, and formulate the ARC’s recommendations.                                                              4 77 FR 53159 (Docket No. FAA-2012-0752). Executive Summary Page x
  13. 13. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Constituency Descriptions In order to achieve a balance between the regulator, regulated parties, other industry stakeholders, and the flying public, the FAA selected ARC members across a broad spectrum of constituencies. ARC membership encompassed the following constituent groups representing stakeholders involved in all aspects of the PED use debate: • PED Manufacturers and Distributors • Pilot and Flight Attendant Groups • Aircraft Operators • Passenger Experience Associations • Airplane and Avionics Manufacturers • Federal Aviation Administration • Other U.S. and International Regulatory Authorities including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) In addition, the ARC invited supplementary participation by FAA and other federal and international regulatory authorities to support the members’ efforts as they collected information and data and debated recommendations. Recommendations The ARC sets forth a total of 29 recommendations on the expanded use of PEDs, including threshold recommendations, as well as recommendations addressing the technical, operational, and safety communications aspects of PED usage. The ARC members reached consensus on all of the recommendations with the exception of one aspect of Recommendation #10, as discussed below. In creating a decision making framework for debating recommendations regarding the safe expansion of PED usage in flight, the ARC focused on an approach that lowers the risk of potential PED interference to an acceptable level.   Executive Summary Page xi
  14. 14. A Report from m the PED AR RC to the FAA The ARC recommen C ndations are based on the following p b e path: Use a an SMS Risk k Analysis to o Mitigate Ha azards Asso ociated with h Passenger Use of PE EDs Make e Aircraft PE ED‐Tolerant t Train C Crewmembe ers to Recognize and Re espond to Po otential PED D Interferen nce Develop Standa ardized Mess saging to Be etter Inform m the Public Regarding PED D‐Tolerant A Airplanes an nd PED Usag ge Policies Threshold Re T ecommendations The ARC not that its re T ted ecommendat tions in the t technical, op perational, an safety nd co ommunicatio areas are all importa to the uni ons e ant iversal accep ptance of ex xpanded al llowance policies for PE usage in flight. The m ED f members determined tha use of Saf at fety Management System (SM methodo M MS) ology, harmo onization of FAA and in nternational policies, and standardizat tion of the traveling expe erience for p passengers w consiste were ent th hemes across all of its re s ecommendati ions. These core concep were doc e pts cumented in a se eries of three threshold recommenda e r ations. (See Recommend dations #1 – #3 below.) Technical Recommendati T ions The ARC spe the major of its tim addressin the technical question associated with T ent rity me ng ns d ex xpanding pa assenger use of PEDs to all phases of flight. The members re f e eviewed dat and ta re elated report from a num ts mber of sour rces. The AR also disc RC cussed the cu urrents stand dards fo demonstra or ating PED-to olerance and various me d ethods by wh operator can hich rs demonstrate compliance with the app c w plicable stand dards. The A ARC deliber rations resulted n mmendations addressing airplane cert tification req quirements f new for in four recom ai irplanes. (Se Recomme ee endations #4 – #7 below 4 w.) In discussing how to hand the existi fleet of a n dle ing airplanes, the members d e determined t a that ph hased approach would be most appr b ropriate to ad ddress legacy airplanes a avionics y and s sy ystem(s) inst tallations. The ARC als recognized the potenti concerns associated w T so d ial with ai irplane certif fication requ uirements for airplanes c currently in p production a and re ecommended a timefram for compl d me liance. (See Recommendation #8 be elow.) Executive Summary Pa xii age
  15. 15. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA The ARC developed two recommendations for enabling airplane operators (under 14 CFR Parts 91K, 121, and 135) to permit expanded passenger PED use to all phases of flight. (See Recommendations #9 & #10 below.) Five members of the ARC dissented to the Method 2 allowance as set forth in Recommendation #10, and their dissent position is included in this report. In addressing technical issues, the ARC also noted the role of the FCC in addition to the FAA and recommended coordination between the agencies. (See Recommendation #11 below.) Operational Recommendations In addressing operational aspects of PED usage, the ARC discussed concerns raised by passengers about the differences between operators’ polices and made recommendations regarding communication of and standardization among PED stowage policies. (See Recommendations #12 – #14 below.) The members discussed the importance of training for airline personnel and developed recommendations to facilitate better awareness among flight and cabin crews with the expansion of PED use in flight. (See Recommendations #15 – #17 below.) In addition, the ARC also proposed a standardized job aid to facilitate operator implementation of expanded PED usage policies. (See Recommendation #18 below.) The operational recommendations also address the importance of the FAA’s role in providing guidance that will allow operators to pursue expanded PED usage policies. (See Recommendations #19 & #20 below.) Safety Communications Recommendations In the past, PEDs that transmitted or received radio frequency energy were a small subset of the larger population of PEDs. However, the consumer electronics market has evolved to where the majority of PEDs incorporate at least one, and frequently more than one, radio technology used for communication and data networking. The ARC has generated several recommendations that take into consideration the evolving marketplace for these devices. (See Recommendations #21 – #25 below.) The ARC also emphasized the importance of effective communication with passengers, the public, and the aviation industry regarding PED policies and developed recommendations designed to work toward that goal. (See Recommendations #26 – #29 below.)   Executive Summary Page xiii
  16. 16. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Summary of Recommendations The ARC recommendations appear below, including a cross-reference to the detailed discussion in this final report: Recommendation Recommendation Area Final Report Reference Recommendation #1—The ARC recommends that the FAA conduct an SMS risk assessment and engage safety experts on its staff and across industry to look for hazards associated with PED interference potential. While the PED ARC membership included some system expertise to identify hazards, it is suggested that a more focused group could develop a complete list of hazards that should be risk assessed to SMS standards. To support the expanded use recommendations proposed by the ARC, the members further recommend a safety risk assessment, as outlined in Appendix F of this report. Threshold 6.1 Recommendation #2—The ARC recommends that the FAA promote harmonized policy with international regulatory authorities, including EASA, such that the recommendations made in the ARC report are universally accepted by international regulatory authorities. The ARC encourages the FAA to use the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as forums to promote expanded PED usage policy within the recommended safety framework. Threshold 6.2 Recommendation #3—The ARC recommends that the FAA standardize the travelling experience for consumers such that they come to expect a consistent approach from air carriers regarding PED usage and stowage requirements. Threshold 6.3 Recommendation #4―New Type Certificate Applications: The ARC recommends that the FAA require PED tolerant (i.e., RTCA DO-307 certified) airplane designs for all new type certificates issued for airplanes under 14 CFR Part 23 (commuter category only) or Part 25. Technical 7.1 Recommendation #5―New Derivative Certificate Applications: The ARC recommends that the FAA require PED tolerant (i.e., RTCA DO-307 certified) airplane designs for all new derivative certificates issued for airplanes under 14 CFR Part 23 (commuter category only) or Part 25. Technical 7.1 Executive Summary Page xiv
  17. 17. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Recommendation Recommendation Area Final Report Reference Recommendation #6—New Avionics, Major Changes in Type Designs: The ARC recommends that the FAA require new avionics system(s) installations that are considered major changes in type design (Supplemental Type Certificate [STC] or Amended Type Certificate [ATC]) with catastrophic failure classifications demonstrate PED tolerance (i.e., RTCA DO-307 certification) for those systems when certificated on airplanes under 14 CFR Part 23 (commuter category only) or Part 25. For new avionics system(s) installations that are considered major changes in type design (STC or ATC), where the systems are required by operating part or with major or hazardous failure classifications, and cannot demonstrate PED tolerance, a safety risk assessment (as discussed in Recommendation #10 below) must be accomplished for those systems. Technical 7.1 Recommendation #7―The ARC recommends that associated FAA guidance documents, including AC 20-164 and AC 91-21.1B, be evaluated to incorporate alternative approach(es) to allow certification of individual systems for PED tolerance. Suggested revisions may also include changes to RTCA DO-294 guidance applicable to 14 CFR Part 119 certificate holders and considerations for the operating environment.  Technical 7.1 Technical 7.2 Recommendation #8―Newly Manufactured Airplanes: The ARC recommends that the FAA implement operational regulations that require all newly manufactured airplanes, which will be operated by 14 CFR Part 119 certificate holders under 14 CFR Parts 121 or 125, to be shown to be PED tolerant (i.e., RTCA DO-307 certified). This requirement would also apply to avionics system(s) installations that are considered major changes in type design (STC or Amended Type Certificate [ATC]) with catastrophic failure classifications, or equipment required by operating part, incorporate PED tolerant (i.e., RTCA DO-307 certification) designs when certificated on airplanes under 14 CFR Part 23 (commuter category only) or Part 25. For avionics system(s) installations that are considered major changes in type design (STC or ATC), where the systems are required by operating part or with major or hazardous failure classifications, and cannot demonstrate PED tolerance, a safety risk assessment (as discussed in Recommendation #10) must be accomplished for those systems. These regulations should have a compliance date no later than December 31, 2015. The FAA should grant petitions for limited extensions for operators introducing aircraft with extenuating circumstances, when justified. Executive Summary Page xv
  18. 18. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Recommendation Recommendation #9―The ARC recommends that the FAA modify AC 91-21.1B (and any associated guidance) to provide processes by which operators can demonstrate compliance with 14 CFR Section 121.306, 125.204, or 135.144, as applicable, in order to allow expanded use of PEDs to all phases of flight. Consideration Recommendation Area Final Report Reference Technical 7.3 Technical 7.3 Technical 7.4 should be given to maintaining cabin safety requirements (e.g. attention to safety announcements) when expanding PED usage. Recommendation #10—The ARC recommends that in revising AC 91-21.1B (and any associated guidance), the FAA adopt the following methodology for expanding PED usage by passengers to all phases of flight. In particular, the FAA should immediately amend/revise current regulatory guidance documents to provide a methodology by which operators can permit PED usage by passengers during all phases of flight, using one of the following two methods: Method 1. The operator may perform PED tolerance testing, or the operator may document evidence of testing by an airplane manufacturer or other entity, that demonstrates airplanes are PED-tolerant in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of RTCA DO307. Method 2. The operator may validate that its airplane and operations meet the requirements and limitations of the safety risk assessment proposed by the ARC for adoption by the FAA (attached as Appendix F to this report) for the phases of flight (identified as Phases 1-8 in Figure 2 below) in which the operator wants to allow expanded passenger PED use. The ARC’s proposed FAA safety risk assessment addresses both back door and front door effects. Mitigations are supported by flight experience, analysis, and test data, and are provided for all failure condition classifications of Major and above, as well as for equipment required by operational rule. Back door effects are assumed to be covered by an airplane’s HIRF certification of critical systems. If an airplane is not HIRF-certified, or has not had other back door interference testing completed, additional analysis and systems testing may be required. Note: Five members of the ARC dissented to the Method 2 allowance discussed above in Recommendation #10, and their dissent position is included in this report. (See Recommendation #10—Dissent Position below.) Recommendation #11―The ARC recommends that the FAA consult with the FCC with regard to Title 47 CFR parts that apply to airborne use of PEDs. Executive Summary Page xvi
  19. 19. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Recommendation Recommendation Area Final Report Reference Recommendation #12―The ARC recommends that the FAA and industry stakeholders develop standard content and timing for cabin and flight deck crewmember instructions to passengers on use and stowage of PEDs. The development process should include testing of the messaging with members of the traveling public. Operational 8.1 Recommendation #13―The ARC recommends that to support standardized industry best practices for stowage related to PEDs, the FAA update stowage policy and guidance documents to incorporate expanded use of PEDs as necessary. Operational 8.1 Recommendation #14―The ARC recommends that the FAA work with industry to develop a methodology by which exceptions can be granted to PED stowage requirements for passengers with special needs (so that they may use devices with adaptive or assistive technologies) without compromising safety. Operational 8.1 Recommendation #15―The ARC recommends that the FAA work with industry stakeholders to develop consistent and standardized training on the identification of PED interference effects so that flight crews are better able to mitigate risks to aviation safety and report possible incidents for further investigation as necessary. Operational 8.2 Recommendation #16―The ARC recommends that the FAA work with industry stakeholders to develop standardized processes for detecting/observing, reporting, evaluating, centralized data storing using existing systems if available, and summarizing of incidents, if any, involving adverse Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) effects on equipment, as well as passenger noncompliance with PED usage or stowage restrictions. Use of these tools should be part of enhanced employee training as proposed by the ARC. Operational 8.2 Recommendation #17―The ARC recommends that the FAA work with industry stakeholders to develop model frameworks for training programs targeting crewmembers and other affected operator personnel (including management), with minor but necessary variations owing to fleet size, airplane configurations and regulatory basis (i.e., part 135 vs. 121, etc.) utilizing standardized statements. This effort should involve initial and recurrent training for all employees, including cabin and flight deck crew, gate agents, and other customer service/contact personnel. Operational 8.2 Recommendation #18―The ARC recommends that the FAA work with industry stakeholders to develop a detailed job aid to lead an operator through key items of consideration. This job aid should be incorporated in the applicable FAA guidance documents. Operational 8.3 Executive Summary Page xvii
  20. 20. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Recommendation Recommendation Area Final Report Reference Recommendation #19―The ARC recommends that the FAA provide operators with policy guidance that institutes the approaches set up in the ARC for expansion of use as acceptable methods for compliance with PED use regulations. Operational 8.4 Recommendation #20―The ARC recommends that the FAA establish policy guidance for flight crew expectations. This policy should clearly define standardized roles and responsibilities for flight crews in the context of expanded PED usage allowance by the operator. These expectations should lessen the crew’s role in enforcing the PED usage policy. Operational 8.4 Recommendation #21―The ARC recommends that the terminology in FAA PED regulations, including 14 CFR 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144, be updated to remove the outdated references to electronic devices. This terminology update should also be applied to all future policy and guidance documents. Safety Communications 9.1 Recommendation #22―The ARC recommends the FAA consider (and encourage operators to consider) using only the term PED when communicating information on operator policy to the public. Based on market data from CEA, most PEDs carried by passengers today incorporate one or more modes of wireless connectivity. With that in mind, distinguishing PEDs as Transmitting or NonTransmitting may be confusing to the general public. Safety Communications 9.1 Recommendation #23―The ARC recommends that the FAA promote and encourage airplane operators to establish more stringent policy and guidance for PEDs that are not easily accessible to passengers or crewmembers during flight operation. Guidelines to PED manufacturers on the test requirements, satisfactory test data, and operational characteristics of these devices should be published in order to provide operators with an appropriate means to evaluate PEDs for use. Examples of these devices include, but are not limited to, some medical devices; asset tracking devices; data collection and monitoring devices; and devices for inventory management. (See Appendix E.) Safety Communications 9.1 Executive Summary Page xviii
  21. 21. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Recommendation Recommendation Area Final Report Reference Recommendation #24―The ARC recommends that the FAA promote and encourage airplane operators to develop a common device terminology (e.g., e-readers, smart phones, and tablet computers) when communicating to passengers about expanded usage policies. The ARC further recommends implementation of this recommendation be completed by November 30, 2013 to minimize confusion for the traveling public and allow the operator to clearly state which types of PEDs are allowed to be used onboard their airplanes and during which phase(s) of flight as outlined in the operator’s usage policy. Safety Communications 9.1 Recommendation #25―The ARC recommends that the FAA encourage airplane operators to provide to passengers lists of PEDs that may not be operated inflight, and make such information easily accessible through various media including printed material, websites, and audio or visual safety information. Safety Communications 9.1 Recommendation #26―The ARC recommends that the FAA and other stakeholders work together to develop messaging designed to better inform the public regarding why there would be restrictions on use of PEDs. Safety Communications 9.2 Recommendation #27―The ARC recommends that regulators, industry representatives and members of the public collaborate on the development of standardized information for travelers, which will be available in multiple, pre-tested formats at ticket purchase, in seat-pocket magazines, as well as distributed through various mass media outlets. Safety Communications 9.2 Recommendation #28―The ARC recommends that the FAA, in collaboration with the airline industry, explain to the public why there is a difference in PED usage policy for crewmembers versus passengers. Safety Communications 9.2 Recommendation #29―The ARC recommends that such collaborative efforts include programs designed to ensure the validity and efficacy of public messaging, using appropriate research, development, testing, evaluation, and feedback processes. In addition to the typical methods used for messaging to passengers (e.g., crewmember announcements, website and kiosk pop-ups, inflight magazines), the ARC further recommends that public information campaigns also leverage social media resources and applications to better anticipate and manage public perception and behavior, as well as counter misinformation as necessary. Safety Communications 9.2     Executive Summary   Page xix
  22. 22. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA   Conclusion The ARC completed its tasking and prepared this report in accordance with its mandate to make recommendations to further clarify and provide guidance on allowing additional PED usage without compromising the continued safe operation of airplanes. In prioritizing its recommendations, the ARC noted that certain threshold recommendations were essential to establishing the initial framework and operating environment in which expanded PED usage could be implemented. The ARC organized the remaining recommendations around its tasking to address the technical, operational, and safety communications aspects associated with the expansion of passenger PED usage to all phases of flight. The ARC designed its recommendations to allow for phased implementation consistent with stakeholder capabilities, as well as sufficient opportunity to engage in a public education campaign concurrent with publication of updated/revised guidance and the allowance for expanded PED usage.     Executive Summary Page xx
  23. 23. A Report from the Portable Electronic Devices Aviation Rulemaking Committee to the Federal Aviation Administration Recommendations on Expanding the Use of Portable Electronic Devices During Flight 1.0 PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE In August 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a Notice of Policy/Request for Comments on current policy, guidance, and procedures that aircraft operators (ranging from pilots of general aviation aircraft to operators) use when determining if passenger use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) may be allowed during any phase of flight on their aircraft.5 The FAA also sought comments about other technical challenges for addressing the problems associated with determining if and when PEDs can be used. In the Notice, the FAA indicated the desired outcome of the Request for Comments was to have sufficient information to allow operators to better assess whether more widespread use of PEDs during flight is appropriate, while maintaining the highest levels of safety to passengers and aircraft. The FAA noted its intent to establish an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to review the comments submitted and provide recommendations that might permit the more widespread use of PEDs. The FAA acknowledged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as a key partner in the FAA/industry collaboration to explore broader use of PEDs during flight. The PED ARC provided a forum for the U.S. aviation community and PED manufacturers to review the comments received from the Federal Register Notice.6 The PED ARC made recommendations to further clarify and provide guidance on allowing additional PEDs without compromising the continued safe operation of the aircraft. This report includes the ARC’s recommendations for allowing additional PED usage on airplanes. The PED ARC membership included representatives from the FAA as well as members representing various stakeholder interests including PED manufacturers and distributors, pilot and flight attendant groups, aircraft operators, passenger experience associations, and aircraft and avionics manufacturers. The names of all ARC members, FAA participants and subject matter experts (SMEs), and other U.S. and international regulatory authorities are listed in Appendix A. Under the Charter, the ARC was scheduled to terminate on July 31, 2013.7 At the request of the members, the FAA extended the ARC Charter until October 31, 2013.8 The ARC has completed its review, and this report provides the results and its recommendation to the FAA.                                                                5 77 FR 53159 (August 31, 2012).  PED ARC Charter at ¶3. See also, 77 FR 53159.  7  PED ARC Charter at ¶10.  8 See Letter Re: Request for Extension Portable Electronic Devices Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) from K. Thornburg, Co-Chair, to M. Huerta, FAA Administrator, dated July 12, 2013. See also, PED ARC Charter (Renewed) at ¶3. 6 Page 1
  24. 24. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 2.0 BACKGROUND This chapter discusses background information relevant to the ARC’s methodology and the development of its recommendations. 2.1 Overview The PED ARC was established to provide a forum for the aviation community and PED manufacturers to review the 162 submissions (which included 1,062 discrete comments) received in response to the Federal Register Notice of Policy/Request for Comments.9 The ARC’s main objective was to make recommendations to the FAA Administrator through the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS-1) to further clarify and provide guidance on allowing additional PEDs without compromising the continued safe operation of the aircraft.10 The ARC was tasked to focus on the technical, operational, and safety aspects of expanding PED usage on aircraft that are within the FAA’s purview to address. In 1966, the FAA first published regulations to address the issue regarding the use of PEDs on aircraft.11 The rulemaking was prompted after the 1958-1961 studies of PED interference concluded that portable frequency modulation (FM) radio receivers caused interference to navigation systems such as VHF Omni Range (VOR) navigation systems. The rulemaking concluded that the aircraft operator was best suited to determine which PEDs would not cause interference with the navigation or communication system on their aircraft. The rulemaking effort acknowledged the impracticality of requiring the FAA to conduct or verify tests of every conceivable PED, as an alternative to a determination made by the operator. The potential for aircraft interference depends on the aircraft and its electrical and electronic systems, as well as the type of PED being used. Prior to fly-by-wire flight controls, the primary concern was the susceptibility of sensitive aircraft communication and navigation radio receivers to spurious radio frequency emissions from PEDs. Many of these aircraft using this older technology are still in service, and may be as susceptible today to interference as they were 45 years ago. When aircraft included fly-by-wire controls and electronic displays, the susceptibility of these aircraft systems also became a concern. Today's highly critical fly-by-wire controls and electronic displays are designed and certified to withstand interference from various radiated fields, including transmitting PEDs. However, not all aircraft electrical and electronic systems were designed to withstand these fields. These newer aircraft still have sensitive navigation, communication, and surveillance radio receivers that may be susceptible at certain frequencies to spurious radio frequency emissions from PEDs. Indeed, in some areas of the world, aerial navigation is conducted using ground-based radio navigational aids, such as VOR/DME, which may be as prone to interference as they were in the 1960s. Other ground-based navigational aids used for precision approaches, such as ILS, may also be at risk. PEDs have changed considerably in the past few decades and output a wide variety of signals. Some devices do not transmit or receive any signals, but generate unintentional low-power radio frequency emissions. Other PEDs, such as e-readers, are only active in this manner during the short time that a page is being                                                              9 PED ARC Charter at ¶3. See also, 77 FR 53159. PED ARC Charter at ¶3. 11 See generally, PED ARC Charter at ¶2, Background. 10 Page 2
  25. 25. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA changed. Of greater concern are intentional transmissions from PEDs. Most PEDs have Internet connectivity that includes transmitting and receiving signals wirelessly using radio waves, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and commercial mobile band technologies. These devices transmit higher powered emissions and can generate spurious signals at undesired frequencies, particularly if the device is damaged. Since the initial rulemaking, the FAA has led four industry activities to study PEDs as the devices have evolved. In the early 1990s, the variety of PEDs had grown to the point that the industry had concerns about keeping up with the technology. The third industry effort was launched to review the overall risk of PED use. Those findings indicated that the probability of interference to installed aircraft systems from PEDs, singly or in multiples, is low at this time. However, the possibility of interference to aircraft navigation and information systems during critical phases of flight, e.g., takeoff and landing, should be viewed as potentially hazardous and an unacceptable risk for aircraft involved in passenger-carrying operations. Therefore, the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) recommended that the use of PEDs be restricted during certain critical phases of flight.12 The FAA agreed and developed Advisory Circular (AC) 91-21.1B, which outlined this guidance as an acceptable method of compliance for PED regulations.13 The guidance in AC 91-21.1B is still in use and serves as the basis for most operators' current policy allowing broad use of nontransmitting PEDs above 10,000 feet. 2.2 Scope The ARC developed a definition of PED to provide context for the discussion and frame the recommendations included in this report. In discussing the scope of its tasking, the ARC also wanted to address certain discussions on topics related to the PEDs-on-aircraft debate but otherwise determined to be outside the scope of its tasking. 2.2.1 Definition of PED In formulating its recommendations, the ARC developed and used the following definition of PED, which applies to all of the recommendations and supporting information included in this report: Portable Electronic Device: A Portable Electronic Device (PED) is any piece of lightweight, electrically-powered equipment. These devices are typically consumer electronics devices functionally capable of communications, data processing and/or utility.14                                                              12 RTCA DO-233, page 1, paragraph 5, prepared by SC-177, ©1996. FAA AC 91-21.1B, Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft (8/25/06). 14 For clarity, the ARC notes that the definition of PEDs is intended to encompass transmitting PEDs (T-PEDs). 13 Page 3
  26. 26. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Examples of PEDs include, but are not limited to, the following commonly manufactured devices: laptop computers; personal communication devices such as hand-held smart phones, tablet computers, media players, e-readers, and personal digital assistants; gaming and entertainment devices; medical and other healthcare assistive devices such as pacemakers and hearing aids; asset trackers; data collection and monitoring devices; inventory management and point-of-sale devices; wearable computers and other devices that may or may not incorporate wireless transmitters and receivers. 2.2.2 Issues Outside of Scope Considered/Discussed The PED ARC discussed a number of issues in determining the scope of its recommendations. During the discussions, questions were raised as to the scope of the ARC Charter. As issues arose, the Designated Federal Official (DFO) coordinated guidance for the members on the FAA’s tasking. In developing the recommendations in this report, the members noted two additional issues of concern—voice communication and malicious use of PEDs. While both issues were outside the defined scope of the ARC’s tasking under its Charter, the members felt strongly that these issues need to be addressed. With member consensus, the ARC believed it represented the constituencies needed to provide the FAA with recommendations surrounding the use of voice communication on airplanes. In the Federal Register Notice, the FAA invited comment on passenger perspectives on the use of PEDs specifically, "Should voice communications using other technologies such as voice over IP be limited or restricted"?15 While the FAA’s intent may have been a review of the technical issues associated with voice communications, most of the respondents that commented referred in general to voice communications and provided a social argument whether it should be allowed or not. The PED ARC has been exposed to several surveys about voice communication in general. The results of the domestic surveys were consistent with the Federal Register commenters where 69 percent of the respondents did not desire cell phone usage (interpreted by the ARC to mean cell phone voice calls).16 The ARC has identified PED passenger compliance and onboard security events as being issues that should also be addressed in the context of the voice communication question. Voice communication in the small, confined space of an airplane cabin may become a concern when crewmembers are distracted from their other onboard duties by incidents involving interpersonal friction between two or more passengers.                                                              15 77 FR 53159, 53162. An international survey, which included passenger responses regarding such services, resulted in 68% acceptance of onboard phone service.. 16 Page 4
  27. 27. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA As the voice communication issue is prevalent in the media, Congress, and in daily passenger operations, the ARC members felt these constituencies are expecting voice communication to be dealt with in concert with the PED ARC’s tasking. Some members felt they could not go back to their constituencies ignoring this important part of the overall PED usage issue on airplanes. To document the member inputs, positions, and issues, the PED ARC has included these discussions in this report but has not made recommendations with regard to the voice communication issue. The members encourage the FAA to review the voice communication issue as discussed and consider whether actions should be taken when adopting or implementing the recommendations from the PED ARC. Finally, there is one FCC regulation that prohibits cellular phones operating in the 800 MHz band from operating aboard airplanes in flight.17 While the ARC understands its tasking is specific to issues the FAA can regulate (or promulgate guidance on), the current FCC rule can create confusion because modern cell phones operate in many other frequency bands and also contain other types of transmitters such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The ARC recognizes that the FAA and FCC have different responsibilities. However, the members have asked the FAA to consult with the FCC with regard to Title 47 regulations that apply to airborne use of PEDs. (See Recommendation #11 below.) With regard to questions surrounding malicious use of PEDs, ARC members were assured that this issue is being addressed by other governmental agencies in additional to remaining outside of the scope of the ARC. The ARC received briefings from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the FAA Office of Infrastructure Protection, and the FAA Aviation Special Operations & Security Division. Current and active Federal Government and private industry structure(s) in place for the appropriate disposition of these concerns include, but are not limited to:18 • Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 871 (6 U.S.C. 451) • Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 21, Critical Infrastructure, Security and Resilience • Homeland Security Presidential Directive 16, Aviation Security Policy • Domestic Outreach Plan, National Strategy for Aviation Security • National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) • Transportation Systems Sector Government Coordinating Council (TSSGCC)                                                              17 47 CFR 22.295. Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 21, Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, February 12, 2013, identified 16 critical infrastructure sectors and designated the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOT as the co-Sector Specific Agencies (SSA) of the Transportation Systems Sector (TSS). The Transportation Systems Sector Government Coordinating Council (TSSGCC) establishes sub-sector councils (aviation, highway, freight rail, mass transit, maritime and pipeline). TSSGCC membership consists of key Federal departments and agencies responsible for or involved in aviation security. The Aviation Government Coordinated Council (ASCC). The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) provides the operational mechanism for carrying out the sector partnership structure. CIPAC provides the framework for aircraft owner and operator members of ASCC and members of AGCC to engage in intra-government and public-private cooperation, information sharing, and engagement across the entire range of critical infrastructure protection activities. 18 Page 5
  28. 28. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 2.2.3 Special Use Monitoring In the public comments, the ARC noted at least one illustration of a case when a special needs passenger may require the use of a PED to enable communication or therapy. With the advancement in technology, the industry has developed applications for tablets, smartphones, and other PEDs to assist passengers with special needs. The FAA received several comments from the public describing one particular use of these devices by passengers with autism. These devices can be used to help these passengers communicate or provide other types of support. While the ARC understands and appreciates these concerns, the devices being used are still consumer off-the-shelf devices that present the same risks discussed in this report. The ARC notes that expansion of use of these devices for special needs must meet the same criteria for allowance of use of all other PEDs. 2.3 Methodology The ARC identified multiple sources and methods for collecting objective data including presentations from subject matter experts (SMEs), as well as review of data submitted by the FAA, other federal agencies, industry associations, and ARC members. 2.3.1 Meetings The ARC met six times and held twelve teleconferences. The meeting/teleconference schedule is included below. Face-to-Face Meetings were held: • January l5 ‒ 17, 2013, in Washington DC • February 26 ‒ 28, 2013, in Washington DC • April 23 ‒ 25, 2013, in Washington DC • June 4 ‒ 6, 2013, in Washington DC • July 9 ‒ 11, 2013, in Washington DC • September 24 ‒ 25, 2013, in Washington DC Teleconferences were held: • January 31, 2013 • February 14, 2013 • March 14, 2013 • April 18, 2013 • May 16, 2013 • May 30, 2013 • June 13, 2013 • June 20, 2013 • June 27, 2013 Page 6
  29. 29. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA • July 18, 2013 • July 25, 2013 • August 29, 2013 Members also received multiple logistical briefings on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and guidance on how to respond to media inquiries regarding the work of the ARC during the pendency of its debate and discussions. Finally, the Administrator and senior FAA officials from across the Agency also addressed the ARC in support of its efforts to find a path forward on expanding the use of PEDs during flight while maintaining the highest levels of safety. 2.3.2 Data Collection Since the PED ARC had a diverse membership across multiple sectors of the aviation industry, as well as PED manufacturer representation, the members sought information and data from a variety of sources. The ARC received a number of informational briefings in its efforts to develop the recommendations contained in this report. The members received briefings on the following topics from the FAA: • Congressional Study on Cell Phone Use on Aircraft19 • Safety Management System (SMS) Philosophy, Guidance and Methodology • RTCA DO-307 PED Tolerance Testing Procedures • Electronic Flight Bag Use and Certification Guidelines • Current PED Stowage/Use Policy and Survey of Cabin Inspectors The members also received briefings on the following topics from other U.S. regulatory authorities and industry organizations: • FCC Management of the Radio Spectrum and Radio Frequency (RF) Devices • FCC Provisions for Wireless Medical Devices • Cell Phone Use Survey Data (provided by members) • Current Airplane PED Tolerant Design Status • Consumer Research on PED Usage on Aircraft • Use of DO-307 Process for Designing to T-PED Tolerance • PED Interference Data Summaries (provided by members)                                                              19 See 77 FR 54651 (September 5, 2012). Page 7
  30. 30. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 2.3.3 Informational Review During its review of the issues related to PED usage, the ARC reviewed current guidance and information on PEDs, including: • Current regulations and FAA guidance documents related to PEDs and operational allowance for PED usage by passengers • SMS/Safety Risk Management (SRM) Decision making Methodology • RTCA documents related to certification of aircraft/systems as PED-tolerant 2.3.4 Identification of Key Issues The ARC used the public comments received in response to the Federal Register Notice to develop a list of key issues, which was used to assist the members in developing a roadmap for decision making. The key issues were tasked to individual subcommittees (described below) for further discussion. In using the key issues model, the members were asked to determine the relative priority of the issue as well as the applicable subject area (technical, operational, or safety communications) for discussion. 2.4 Subcommittees The ARC formed three separate subcommittees to review the key issues raised in the ARC review of docket and member comments on the expansion of PED usage in flight. The key issues fell into technical, operational, and safety communications categories, and thus three subcommittees were each assigned the applicable group of key issues. The Subcommittee Chairs (as identified in Appendix A) were appointed to research each issue and propose potential recommendations to the plenary committee for consideration. Separating the key issues into three areas helped distribute the workload among the members and provided a forum for ARC members to debate issues in smaller groups aiding the overall ability to reach group consensus. The Subcommittee Chairs called in SMEs to provide additional information when needed. 2.4.1 Technical Subcommittee The Technical Subcommittee focused on key issues surrounding airplane tolerance to PEDs, as well as PED power and transmission standards. The subcommittee used technical site visits to various system experts to gain knowledge to help disposition the key issues assigned. The subcommittee navigated across aviation, telecommunications, and PED industry design standards to form recommendations that met the expectations of each stakeholder group. This subcommittee provided initial recommendations, as the Operational and Safety Communications subcommittees needed direction on the technical path for expanded PED usage to be clarified as they debated key operational and safety communications recommendations. Page 8
  31. 31. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 2.4.2 Operational Subcommittee The Operational Subcommittee focused on key issues surrounding the onboard management of PED device usage, crew communications, and the desire for standardized practices across operators. The subcommittee used member expertise in cabin and cockpit operations, PED device operation, and passenger adherence to current PED usage policies to inform its discussions. The subcommittee balanced the needs of a safe operational environment with the passengers’ desire for connectivity for both entertainment and business functions. This subcommittee ensured that recommendations could be implemented across the spectrum of airplane operators, regardless of size or type of fleet. There were many types of operators represented on the subcommittee, including: general aviation, business jet, and scheduled and charter transport. 2.4.3 Safety Communications Subcommittee The Safety Communications Subcommittee played a key role in addressing passenger desires and need for information within the ARC’s recommendations. This subcommittee ensured that a series of technical and operational procedures would not be conceived without understanding the passengers’ need for awareness, understanding, and ability to comply. This subcommittee was assigned key issues regarding boarding/preflight announcements, coordinated communications, understanding of PED operational modes, and how best to communicate to passengers (and the public) the potential interference risk to critical airplane systems. 2.5 Working Groups As the conclusion of the initial charter period approached, the ARC worked to develop a recommended path for operators to expand PED usage in flight. The members believed that two areas required further assessment prior to finalizing the ARC’s recommendations. Before accepting that the recommended path could be reliably implemented by operators, the ARC requested an extension of the initial PED ARC Charter and identified two additional work tasks.20 During the extension granted under the renewed Charter, the ARC requested the assistance of the FAA in forming two Working Groups (Tiger Teams) to develop the safety risk assessment and a standardized PED stowage policy. The Working Groups were comprised of ARC members as well as industry and FAA SMEs, and each Working Group was tasked to address an area of study and develop additional information for inclusion in this report. 2.5.1 Safety Assessment Working Group The PED ARC membership was concerned that operators needed more specific guidance on how to complete an adequate safety risk assessment when expanding PED use; particularly with regard to its effects to critical safety systems. Information from the FAA and aircraft manufacturers with respect to failure effect classification would be useful for the operator to determine effective mitigation. To support the use of a Safety                                                              20 PED ARC Charter (Renewed) at ¶3 (describing two additional Committee tasks). Page 9
  32. 32. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Risk Assessment tool in expanding PED usage, the ARC members desired to review the work product of such a working group. To support the members’ request, the Safety Assessment Working Group comprised of PED ARC members, as well as industry and FAA SMEs was formed. This working group developed and documented an avionics system functional hazard risk assessment, which is included as Appendix F to this report. 2.5.2 Stowage Standardization Working Group The PED ARC membership received briefings from the FAA on current PED stowage policy and guidance material, as well as actual operator PED stowage policy examples. The ARC membership was concerned that insufficient guidance exists in this area such that (1) operator stowage policy could negate an intended expanded passenger PED use policy if an uninformed view of projectile and egress risk from PEDs exists; and (2) passengers would be confused by conflicting stowage policies across the operator community. The members noted that a recommended interim PED stowage policy guidance document would be of use to operators while the FAA considers action on Recommendation #13 in this report. The Stowage Standardization Working Group, consisting of informed PED ARC members as well as industry and FAA SMEs, developed the PED stowage policy assessment and considerations included in Appendix G of this report. Page 10
  33. 33. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 3.0 CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK This chapter provides a discussion of the current regulatory framework applicable to airplane/equipment certification processes and operational allowance procedures in relation to the use of PEDs during flight. Under the current regulatory environment, the operator is still responsible for determining which PEDs may be used on its airplanes. Each operator’s PED policy determines what types of devices may be used during which phase(s) of flight. Crewmembers are responsible for ensuring passenger compliance with that airplane operator's PED policy. Typically, when a flight attendant observes a violation, he or she may request that the passenger turn off and stow the device. If the passenger remains non-compliant, depending on the operator's policies and procedures, the flight attendant may report the violator to the flight deck for a decision on whether to hold or divert the flight, and/or notify law enforcement.21 Current guidance allows broad use of non-transmitting PEDs during non-critical phases of flight without a detailed study of specific PEDs.22 However, if an operator wishes to expand its PED use allowance, FAA policy and guidance is in place to allow expanded PED use, with the proper testing and analysis, during any phase of flight. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) §§ 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144 establish the regulatory requirements for use of PEDs without the authorization of the airplane operator. These regulations are set up to prevent persons from using PEDs on civil airplanes unless the operator (or in the case of general aviation operators, the pilot) has determined that the device will not cause interference to the communication and navigation systems on the airplane. There are four specific devices that have been excluded from this requirement and they are listed below in 14 CFR 91.21 (cited as an example). § 91.21 Portable electronic devices. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.registered civil aircraft: (1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR. (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to— (1) Portable voice recorders; (2) Hearing aids; (3) Heart pacemakers; (4) Electric shavers; or (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used. (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the                                                              21 The ARC noted multiple examples where enforcement of an operator's PED policy resulted in conflict between crewmembers and passengers, or passengers with other passengers. The ARC discussed situations where noncompliance with crewmember safety instructions on the use of PEDs resulted in passengers being removed from an airplane, and in some cases, in-flight diversions. 22  See AC 91-21.1B.  Page 11
  34. 34. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft. 3.1 Regulatory History In 1966, the FAA first published regulations to address the use of PEDs. The first regulation, 14 CFR § 91.19,23 was later superseded by §§ 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144 to specifically address commercial operations. These regulations also placed the onus for determining what devices could be used on the individual operator. The rulemaking effort was prompted after the 1958-1961 studies of PED interference concluded that portable frequency modulation (FM) radio receivers caused interference to navigation systems such as VHF Omni Range (VOR) navigation systems. During that rulemaking process, the FAA received comments on the subject of FAA involvement in authorization of PED usage. The public expressed concern that authorization of devices not specifically excepted in the rule (i.e., portable voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers, electric shavers) would subject operators to a considerable amount of “red tape.” The FAA agreed and concluded that the airplane operator was best suited to make the determination of which PEDs would not cause interference with the navigation or communication system on the airplane. The FAA further recognized that requiring the FAA to conduct or verify tests of every conceivable PED, as an alternative to a determination made by the operator, would place an excessive and unnecessary burden on the Agency. 3.2 Associated Regulations and Security Activity As the design of airplane and engine control systems evolved to use more advanced electrical and electronic control, the FAA determined that standardized regulatory policy and guidance was necessary to ensure these systems were sufficiently protected from environmental conditions that could have a negative impact. Airplanes that included fly-by-wire controls and electronic display systems were of particular concern because failures for these systems could be catastrophic. To address a known environmental threat, the FAA defined requirements for high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF) to provide assurance that newer airplanes with systems such as critical flyby-wire controls and electronic displays will have sufficient protection to continue to operate safely when exposed to HIRF. The FAA began assigning special conditions to airplane and system installation in 1987. In 2007, the FAA promulgated 14 CFR § 25.1317 and companion regulations for the other airplane categories.24 These regulations resulted in protection of such systems from spurious emissions from PEDs and intentional transmissions from transmitting PEDs that could cause interference by direct coupling to the system’s wiring and apertures. However, HIRF protection does not provide avionics received systems (e.g., instrument landing system (ILS) and global positioning system (GPS)) from spurious emissions of PEDs and intentional transmissions from transmitting PEDs.                                                              23 24 14 CFR 91.19, Docket No. 7247; Amdt 91-35 (later superseded by §§ 91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144). See also, 14 CFR Parts 23, 27, and 29. Page 12
  35. 35. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 3.3 Operational Allowance Today, the authority to allow the use of PEDs in flight rests with the operator under 14 CFR § 91.21. Further, AC 91-21.1B provides guidance to the operator to make the determination that the operation of PEDs will not interfere with the safe operation of the airplane. Generally, operators have adopted guidance in AC 91-21.1B. Recommended Procedures for Operators Prohibiting the operation of any PEDs during the takeoff and landing phases of flight. It must be recognized that the potential for personal injury to passengers is a paramount consideration, as well as is the possibility of missing significant safety announcements during important phases of flight. This prohibition is in addition to lessening the possible interference that may arise during sterile cockpit operations (below 10,000 feet).25 Operators have been hesitant to deviate from the recommendations outlined in AC 91-21.1B, as there has been no clear industry/regulatory guidance on methods to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety when expanding PED use into critical phases of flight. There is an additional burden on the airplane operator to insure that PEDs approved for use on board airplanes do not interfere with navigation and communication systems. Recommended Procedures for Operators Procedures for determining non-interference acceptability of those PEDs to be operated aboard its aircraft. Acceptable PEDs should be clearly spelled out in oral departure briefings and by written material provided to each passenger to avoid passenger confusion. The operator of the aircraft must make the determination of the effects of a particular PED on the navigation and communication systems of the aircraft on which it is to be operated. The operation of a PED is prohibited, unless the device is specifically listed in section 91.21(b)(1) through (4). However, even if the device is an exception from the general prohibition on the use of PEDs, an operator may prohibit use of that PED. The use of all other PEDs is prohibited by regulation, unless pursuant to section 91.21(b)(5). The operator is responsible for making the final determination that the operation of that device will not interfere with the communication or navigation system of the aircraft on which it is to be operated.26 Each operator establishes a method by which this PED effects determination is made. A common method for making this determination is to compare each PED device against the current RTCA DO-160 standards for airborne equipment which has RF and Power emissions and transient allowances. As the consumer electronics industry has exploded in terms of device type and popularity, the requirement for each operator to fully evaluate each and every PED desired to be brought onboard an aircraft has become untenable. 3.4 FCC Regulations The FCC has established rules for radio transmitters and consumer electronic equipment to minimize the risk of harmful interference to other users of the airwaves. The FCC rules, with a few notable exceptions, do not prohibit use of radio transmitters or consumer electronic equipment aboard airplanes.                                                              25 26 AC 91-21.1B at ¶6.F. AC 91-21.1B at ¶6.E. Page 13
  36. 36. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA The FCC standards for controlling interference from PEDs are essentially the same as those used elsewhere throughout the world. While these standards are not specifically designed to prevent interference from PEDs used on board airplanes, based on experience, there appears to be little risk of such interference from compliant devices. Since 1991, 47 CFR 22.925 has prohibited the airborne use of 800 MHz cellular phones. The ban was put in place because of potential interference to cellular networks on the ground. In early 2005, the FCC proposed rulemaking to lift this ban.27 In April 2007, the FCC terminated this proceeding, with the Commission noting that the “comments filed in this proceeding provide insufficient technical information that would allow the Commission to assess whether the airborne use of cellular phones may occur without causing harmful interference to terrestrial networks.”28 Cell phones have recently been permitted by foreign carriers on international flights through use of pico-cells or miniature cellular base stations certified or approved for use aboard the aircraft. These pico-cells cease operation when the flight is over U.S. airspace, but there is growing interest in continuing operation when over the U.S. This raises the possibility that it may be appropriate for the FCC to again review its policies relative to cell phone use on planes, not only for international flights, but for U.S. domestic flights as well. Moreover, cell phone technology has advanced considerably since the last time the FCC reviewed the current rules, when usage was primarily focused on voice calls as opposed to the current widespread use of smart phones and devices for access to the Internet and various applications on board the airplane. These picocells cease operation when the flight is over U.S. airspace. The FCC has approved rules that allow in-flight voice and data services, including broadband services using dedicated air-to-ground frequencies that were previously used for seat-back telephone service. Air-to-ground service providers offer in-flight services, such as Internet access for laptop computers via Wi-Fi systems that have been certified for use on aircraft. Because these air-to-ground services operate on frequencies that are dedicated to air-to-ground communications and are separate from those used for wireless services on the ground, they do not pose an interference risk to wireless networks on the ground. Consumer devices using ultra-wideband technology are prohibited from operating on board airplanes due to the unique characteristics of this technology. This technology is not currently available in the form of PEDs. New Wi-Fi technology has been developed for the 60 GHz region of the spectrum. Such devices are currently prohibited from operating on board airplanes due to concerns about potential interference to radio astronomy. However, it is possible that this restriction may be revisited as 60 GHz devices may be introduced in the future for use in PEDs.                                                              27 28 70 FR 11916 (March 10, 2005). 72 FR 20439 (April 25, 2007). Page 14
  37. 37. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 4.0 NOTICE OF POLICY AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS This chapter addresses the ARC’s tasking to review the comments received from the Federal Register Notice. 4.1 Federal Register Notice On August 31, 2012, the FAA published a Notice of Policy, Request for Comment regarding Passenger Use of Portable Electronic Devices on board Aircraft in the Federal Register.29 The Agency sought comments on current policy, guidance, and procedures that aircraft operators use when determining if passenger use of PEDs may be allowed during any phase of flight on their aircraft. 4.2 Assessment of Federal Register Comments The comment period closed on October 30, 2012, and resulted in 162 formal submissions, 854 separate commenters, and a total of 1,062 discrete comments. The FAA Comment Compilation Team sorted the comments into different areas based on the questions posed in the Notice. The final compilation also tracked each comment by the type of submitter (noting industry stakeholder comments, passenger comments, as well as other types of submitters). The ARC members reviewed the compiled comments and discussed the results by each question category (or issue). From each category, the Chair gained consensus from the members as to when a potential key issue existed from which the ARC may desire to form/develop a recommendation. Thirty-two (32) specific key issues were identified and used to inform the ARC’s deliberations. The members used the 32 key issue areas to narrow the questions presented and formulate the ARC’s recommendations. A summary of the comments (by question category) appears below: (a) Technical requirements exist to make airplanes tolerant from any interference effects from PEDs: Members noted that the work done by RTCA SC-202 laid an excellent foundation for establishing PED tolerant airplanes and a focused review. The Technical Subcommittee reviewed RTCA guidance documents DO-307, DO-294, and DO-160, as well as FAA AC 91-21.1B and AC 20-164 among other documents to determine ways to make airplanes PED tolerant using some mix of voluntary or mandatory methods. The ARC delineated three distinct categories of airplanes to consider: Airplanes that are 1) part of today's fleet; 2) being manufactured today or in the medium-term future under existing type certificates; and 3) being newly designed to be built under new type certificates.                                                              29 77 FR 53159 (Docket No. FAA-2012-0752). Page 15
  38. 38. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA (b) Comments from individuals identified as passengers (not associated with any particular industry group) indicate a growing belief that PED usage causes no harm to today's airplanes: Many respondents commented that they intentionally do not follow operator instructions when told to power off their PEDs. The respondents are convinced that there is absolutely no harm that can be caused by PEDs and that concerns are outdated and should have been dealt with long ago by the FAA. These and other passenger views prompted the ARC to focus one aspect of its work on safety communications recommendations that, regardless of the outcome of the expanded usage determination, will be integral to assuring passenger acceptance of and compliance with future operator and FAA PED usage policies. (c) Standards and consistency around PED stowage requirements: Passengers support stowing PEDs when they are assured it is necessary for safety from a projectile or egress perspective. Additionally, it is also clear that passengers desire to have a consistent flying experience as they travel. • Domestically • Internationally • From Airline to Airline • From Airplane to Airplane within an Airline Further, there is a lack of guidance regarding passenger personal items that must be stowed for takeoff and landing (i.e., a hard cover book can be held by a passenger, while a purse must be stowed). The Safety Communications subcommittee considered this issue in detail in its recommendations. (d) Standards within the consumer electronics industry for airplane-friendly PEDs: Most commenters like this idea but committee discussions on this have surfaced how difficult this would be to implement. The members of the ARC who represent the PED manufacturing community indicate an openness to consider some type of expanded device testing and tagging to allow acceptable operator use; however, they note that their industry now increasingly displays such information electronically rather than with a physical device tag. Even if physical device tags were developed, they would have to be of sufficient size and brightness to be clearly visible to a crewmember in the aisle when held in a window seat, with some tamper- and counterfeit-resistant features. Also, today's PEDs typically combine multiple transmission modes (e.g., Bluetooth, cellular, Wi-Fi) with new modes envisioned for the near future, adding to the complexity of device tagging. Further, the committee observes that many passengers may be unaware of the communication mode used by their devices, and may therefore find it difficult to confirm that their device is in a "safe" operating condition; this would lead to unacceptable confusion and possible interpersonal friction during inflight operations. Page 16
  39. 39. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA (e) Consistency in use with flight and cabin crew PEDs such as a cockpit Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) device(s): Airlines are proceeding to adapt PEDs for EFB and Cabin product use; restrictions on the use of such devices may differ from those applied to passenger devices today, or to future operator policies that allow for expanded PED use by passengers. The ARC recognizes that a mixed safety message potentially exists if an operator crew member is using a PED during a time when the operator has said a passenger device is not safe to operate. The ARC further notes that crewmember PEDs have been specifically authorized by the FAA for use in flight by crewmembers. The operational authorization is achieved by meeting specific FAA requirements that include restrictions on the type of software allowed to be used in flight. (f) Operational challenges of interference with passenger medical devices and impact on autistic passengers were identified: Medical devices on board an airplane may require continuous operation; however, the ARC has been unable to confirm that medical devices are tested against DO-160 equivalent emissions standards to verify compatibility for airborne operation. Autism was mentioned by a number of respondents who indicate autistic patients, especially children, may have negative behavioral reactions during takeoff and landing when their attention is not engaged by PEDs. The ARC notes that many operators already have a process in place to evaluate specific medical devices for special needs passengers, which involves evaluating each device on an individual basis. (g) SMS and other risk-based assessments were incorporated in ARC Recommendations: Many of the commenters requested that PED policies ensure airplane operational safety. This is a universal objective of all of the PED ARC committee members; however, balancing safety, economic impact, and passenger convenience is the challenge. To address this need, the PED ARC recommends adapting the SMS approach to develop a comprehensive risk-based assessment tool. Service Difficulty Report (SDR) data, Operator Interference data, and Manufacturer/Supplemental Type Certificate Installer test data are recommended inputs into the SMS model analysis. (See Section 6.1 of this report.) Further, operators have guidance on determining the severity of hazard from the ARC’s work summarized in Appendix F, Avionics System Functional Hazard Risk Assessment. 5.0 CONSTITUENCY DESCRIPTIONS This chapter describes the various constituencies that comprise the ARC membership. Each member or participant on the ARC was selected to represent an identified stakeholder group or industry segment, and because the member possessed the expertise and qualifications to speak for that constituency. The FAA wanted to achieve a balance between the regulator, regulated parties, other industry stakeholders, and the flying public. As a result of the varied constituencies, the ARC was able to engage in meaningful debate on a sound, risk-based methodology for expanding the use of PEDs, and all of the constituencies contributed to the discussions on the technical, operational, and safety communications key issues. The ARC also invited additional participation by FAA and other federal and international Page 17
  40. 40. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA regulatory authority SMEs to support the members as they collected information and data and debated recommendations. The membership encompassed seven constituent groups representing stakeholders involved in all aspects of the PED use debate. 5.1 PED Manufacturers and Distributors The FAA invited Amazon.com and OnAsset Intelligence, Inc., as well as the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) which represents 2,000 companies across the consumer electronics industry, to participate in the ARC. These PED industry representatives brought an important perspective to the ARC deliberations. They described their customers’ experiences, observations, and questions about PED use aboard aircraft. They also discussed FCC-mandated testing and other testing required for PEDs, as well as industry practices regarding regulatory compliance. In addition, CEA was able to share consumer research survey findings specifically related to the in-flight use of PEDs, as well as a similar survey conducted ten years earlier. 5.2 Pilot and Flight Attendant Groups The membership included representation from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), the largest airline pilot union in the world, and the Association of Flight AttendantsCWA (AFA-CWA), the world's largest flight attendant union. These members were invited to participate to address crewmembers' safety concerns as they relate to expanded use of PEDs. 5.3 Aircraft Operators The membership encompassed four 14 CFR Part 119 certificated air carriers and two industry associations. Delta Airlines, JetBlue Airways, American Airlines, Executive Jet Management, the Regional Airline Association (RAA) which represents North American regional airlines, and the Helicopter Association International comprised the operator contingent. These air carrier and industry association members were able to educate the other members on the current approval process(es) associated with PED usage policies, as well the practical challenges associated with demonstrating PED-tolerance to the FAA in order to obtain approval for the expanded use of PEDs. 5.4 Passenger Experience Associations The membership included two passenger experience associations. The Airline Passenger Experience Association (APEX) is a network of the world’s leading airlines, suppliers and related companies committed to elevating the level of the passenger experience. The National Association of Airline Passengers is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and protecting passenger rights and representing the passenger constituency. 5.5 Airplane and Avionics Manufacturers The membership included three airplane manufacturers―The Boeing Company, Airbus, and Cessna Corporation, as well as two industry trade associations representing airplane manufacturers. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) represents 80 of the Page 18
  41. 41. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA world’s leading manufacturers of general aviation airplanes and rotorcraft, engines, avionics, components and related services, and the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) represents the nation’s leading manufacturers and suppliers of civil, military, and business airplane, helicopters, unmanned airplane systems, space systems, airplane engines, missiles, materiel and related components, equipment, services and information technology. The ARC membership also included three avionics manufacturers―Garmin, Thales, and Rockwell Collins. The airplane/avionics manufacturer constituency spent a substantial amount of time educating the members on PED-tolerant airplanes and the testing required for an operator to obtain operational authorization for PED usage. 5.6 Federal Aviation Administration FAA representation on the ARC included members from the Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300), Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC), and the AVS Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Aircraft Electromagnetic Compatibility. In addition, several FAA subject matter experts participated in the ARC, including representatives from the Aircraft Engineering Division (AIR-100), Air Transportation Division (AFS-200), Office of Communications (AOC) and Office of Rulemaking (ARM). FAA members and participants supported the efforts of the ARC by facilitating discussion of the current regulatory framework for usage of PEDs; conducting briefings on a number of technical and regulatory issues; reviewing and cataloging comments submitted in response to the Federal Register Notice; and answering questions for the members. 5.7 Other U.S. and International Regulatory Authorities In addition to the members and SMEs from the FAA, ARC members included representatives from the FCC and TSA. To the extent the work of the PED ARC overlapped areas within the authority of the FCC, the FCC member was available to clarify current FCC rules and discuss changes in the rules that the Commission has either proposed or may consider in the future. The FCC representative also briefed the members on developments in the use of the radio spectrum and radio frequency devices, including the advances in medical devices that are now and will in the future be carried by many passengers. The TSA representative was available to address the overlap between operational/technical considerations and the associated security concerns. At the outset of the ARC, members expressed a desire to harmonize its efforts with the international aviation community and requested that the FAA reach out to counterpart international safety organizations in Europe. A representative from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) served on the ARC, and representatives from the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (U.K. CAA) and Transport Canada (TC) participated on the ARC to discuss companion international efforts to harmonize PED usage policies. Page 19
  42. 42. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 6.0 THRESHOLD RECOMMENDATIONS The ARC developed threshold recommendations to address the core concepts consistent across all aspects involved in expanding PED usage. These recommendations apply to the technical, operational, and safety communications recommendations that appear in later chapters of this report. 6.1 SMS Methodology To support expanded PED usage on airplanes, the ARC studied the FAA SMS methodology as one method for risk mitigation.30 The key elements of the SMS process involve identifying hazards associated with the introduction of any new system and determine the likelihood and most probable outcome of the existence of the hazard. The SMS approach forces a risk determination for each hazard and if the risk is found unacceptable, forces a review of actions that could be taken to mitigate the risk to an acceptable level. The ARC endeavored to find as many data sources as possible to determine the number of confirmed occurrences of PED interference with aircraft systems. Several members studied data sources and compiled information that was presented to the ARC, including analysis of Service Difficulty Reports (SDR), ASRS Reports, operator reports, and information from multiple Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) holders (conducting new system certification testing). To the extent such information is not proprietary and/or could be de-identified, it is included in Appendix I of this report. The ARC noted the difficulty that each of these sources had in confirming PEDs as a source of interference. However, each data set appeared to contain sufficient information to determine if an event was or was not related to PED interference. As there is difficulty in confirming PED interference across these data sources, the ARC recommends that an SMS risk assessment be conducted so that it captures some or all suspected PED interference events to obtain a conservative frequency of occurrence. PED designs have also improved over time. Devices today emit much less power as manufacturers have sought to extend battery life.31 Transmitting PED designs have also been improved to insure devices stay within a tighter range of frequencies and transient noise envelopes. These factors have contributed to a PED population with much less potential to cause system interference. See Figure 1 below.                                                                30 See generally, Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Safety SMS Guidance at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/. 31 See Radio-Electronics.com (http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/gsm_technical/powercontrol-classes-amplifier.php). Page 20
  43. 43. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA Figure 1 – Average Life of PC/Tablets in Use (Years)32 For example, where devices such as portable FM radios, TV receivers, CD players and electronic hand-held games were popular years ago, today passengers are more likely to be carrying ereaders, tablet and laptop computers, music players, and smart phones that can operate in airplane mode. Many of these products have life-cycles of only a few years due to the rapid introduction of newer and better products. Accordingly, the specific device types that may have caused issues in the past may no longer be relevant today.33 Recommendation #1—The ARC recommends that the FAA conduct an SMS risk assessment and engage safety experts on its staff and across industry to look for hazards associated with PED interference potential. While the PED ARC membership included some system expertise to identify hazards, it is suggested that a more focused group could develop a complete list of hazards that should be risk-assessed to SMS standards. To support the expanded use recommendations proposed by the ARC, the members further recommend a safety risk assessment, as outlined in Appendix F of this report. As the SMS process is relatively new to the aviation community, the ARC also encourages the FAA to assign SMEs from the SMS Program Office to aid in the SMS risk assessment.                                                              32 Daniel Research Group (2013) June 2013: United States PC, Tablet, & Mobile Phone Market Size and Forecast. Daniel Research Group. 33 For example, portable FM radios included local oscillators that tended to generate significant spurious emissions on aeronautical frequencies, but such devices are no longer prevalent in the market. Page 21
  44. 44. A Report from the PED ARC to the FAA 6.2 Harmonization Passengers worldwide must be comfortable and have sufficient knowledge to understand that airplanes are tolerant against PED emissions. Passengers are also looking for standardized, reasonable operator PED stowage requirements that balance societal expectations against projectile and egress risks. If a worldwide effective communication strategy is achieved, then the ARC believes the FAA will be positioned as a leader in international efforts to promote harmonization in this area. Recommendation #2—The ARC recommends that the FAA promote harmonized policy with international regulatory authorities, including EASA, such that the recommendations made in the ARC report are universally accepted by international regulatory authorities. The ARC encourages the FAA to use the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as forums to promote expanded PED usage policy within the recommended safety framework. The ARC notes that its recommendations in the technical, operational, and safety communications areas discussed below are all important to the universal acceptance of expanded allowance policies for PED usage in flight. 6.3 Standardization The ARC encourages the FAA to set the standard for PED usage and stowage and encourage operators to only differ from a standard when absolutely necessary to mitigate an unacceptable risk condition. With regard to all article stowage standards, the ARC found that there has been very little policy, guidance, and analysis done with respect to what type of objects should be allowed to be out and in use during takeoff and landing. The FAA should use this opportunity to not only define what types of PEDs could be out and in use during takeoff and landing but define all article standards as well. Recommendation #3—The ARC recommends that the FAA standardize the travelling experience for consumers such that they come to expect a consistent approach from air carriers regarding PED usage and stowage requirements. The ARC received comments through the docket and our various constituencies that passengers do not like or understand why PED usage and stowage are different from air carrier to air carrier. Neither a lack of understanding of differences by passengers, nor an explanation by air carriers that it is “airline/operator policy” or “FAA required,” is an acceptable practice going forward. Society has changed to where PEDs are an integral part of our everyday lives. The public expects and this ARC recommends that the FAA clearly articulate what is an acceptable risk with respect to device type and ensure confidence in the public that a proper risk assessment has been done.   Page 22

×